Politico admits that McCain is getting hosed by the press, then spends several pages explaining that it's because they're just reporting what they see. Right. Their response to the Pew survey, which reported that John McCain got four times as many negative stories as positive ones dnd that Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent), and their estimate that "Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election" is: "So what?"

Slate does their poll of their staffers and comes up with an astonishing stat: Obama wins there, 55-1 (http://www.slate.com/id/2203151/pagenum/all/). Those are the kinds of percentages that Saddam Hussein used to rack up in his rigged elections. They're the kind of numbers that you'd expect to see if a responsible candidate were running against an inanimate object, or if a moderate were running against a Nazi. In Israel.

If Slate were comprised of 55 white males and 1 African-American, the Diversity police would go berserk, but a 55-1 disparity along political lines when the rest of the country is evenly split doesn't bother the same people who will sue an employer into the ground over a minor variance in ethnic percentages.

Anyone who doesn't think that the media has been grossly biased in favor of Obama and the Democrats is in a state of intense delusion. But, this has more implications that go far beyond this election and into the basic structure of our nation and Constitution. Put simply, the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press is based on the belief that such a press will provide critical information to the American people so that they can make informed decisions about the governance of the country. Instead, the media has become a corrupted institution that is every bit as destructive to our country as the current banking crisis.

The good news, and there is some, is that the old media's days are numbered. The NY Times stock is now at its lowest point in years and continues to drop. MSM newspapers continue to lose circulation and conservative media continues to increase it. The public may not know that they've been hoodwinked this time around, but they'll figure it out soon enough, and as long as the internet and talk radio remain unregulated, then there's an alternative that is increasing in power, and which is going to make it far more difficult for the MSM to continue to play hometown ref. Take heart.

Robare

11-11-2008, 03:27 PM

One thing that amazes me about the MSM is that obviously the whole country knows that George Bush used cocaine when he was in college. You heard all about it from the NYT and from CBS and NBC and MSNBC. They never let you forget it. However, in Barack Obama's book, he admits to using cocaine. Who knew? It seems "the chosen one" ain't so perfect. Yet you never hear about this in any news. The first I had heard of it was a week after his being elected. From the little I had heard about this, the only responses were Obamaniacs who assumed every president has done cocaine and just hasn't admitted it, therefore, if it is ever brought up, Obama will look like the honest and sincere person they see him as. They don't need to worry about that though, the MSM will make sure this information is kept tightly in between the pages of his book.

YupItsMe

11-11-2008, 05:40 PM

One thing that amazes me about the MSM is that obviously the whole country knows that George Bush used cocaine when he was in college. You heard all about it from the NYT and from CBS and NBC and MSNBC. They never let you forget it. However, in Barack Obama's book, he admits to using cocaine. Who knew? It seems "the chosen one" ain't so perfect. Yet you never hear about this in any news. The first I had heard of it was a week after his being elected. From the little I had heard about this, the only responses were Obamaniacs who assumed every president has done cocaine and just hasn't admitted it, therefore, if it is ever brought up, Obama will look like the honest and sincere person they see him as. They don't need to worry about that though, the MSM will make sure this information is kept tightly in between the pages of his book.

I'm hopeful the media will start to report on Obama's shortcomings ( No Michelle, that's not what I'm talking about. I promised you I'd keep that our little secret) I think the media are libs first but cutthroat bastards second. Now that they've got their man in, it is not below them to smear him some if it sells. Who knows what will come up. They've got about 3 yrs and then they'll go after his Republican challenger with a gusto. :mad:

Sonnabend

11-12-2008, 06:28 AM

( No Michelle, that's not what I'm talking about. I promised you I'd keep that our little secret)

You

Owe

Me

A

Monitor

:mad::mad::mad:

conch

11-12-2008, 10:02 AM

Study on media politcal bias--The Project for Excellence in Journalism--found the following. (http://journalism.org/)

All Media:

57% of McCain stories were negative
29% of Obama stories were negative

Newspaper Coverage:

69% of McCain stories were negative
28% of Obama stories were negative

NBC:

54% of McCain stories negative
21% of Obama stories negative

MSNBC:

73% of McCain stories negative
14% of Obama stories negative

Fox News:

40% of McCain stories negative
40% of Obama stories negative

Celtic Rose

11-12-2008, 10:05 AM

Study on media politcal bias--The Project for Excellence in Journalism--found the following. (http://journalism.org/)

All Media:

57% of McCain stories were negative
29% of Obama stories were negative

Newspaper Coverage:

69% of McCain stories were negative
28% of Obama stories were negative

NBC:

54% of McCain stories negative
21% of Obama stories negative

MSNBC:

73% of McCain stories negative
14% of Obama stories negative

Fox News:

40% of McCain stories negative
40% of Obama stories negative

Wow, so the only one that was actually balanced is the one the Dems constantly complain about :cool:

How can anybody look at those numbers and not realize the media's bias :confused:

Odysseus

11-12-2008, 10:48 AM

Wow, so the only one that was actually balanced is the one the Dems constantly complain about :cool:
How can anybody look at those numbers and not realize the media's bias :confused:

Why do you think that the Dems complain about it?

Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias (http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226500992&sr=8-1), explains the phenomena brilliantly. They don't ever hear the other side of the debate on any of the issues that they report on, because the vast majority of them never leave their insular bubble, and when everyone you associate with has the same worldview, without any opposition, you come to think of that worldview as the mainstream. That's why Dan Rather thinks that the NY Times is a "middle of the road" paper and the Wall Street Journal is "right wing."

PoliCon

11-12-2008, 02:12 PM

Study on media politcal bias--The Project for Excellence in Journalism--found the following. (http://journalism.org/)

All Media:

57% of McCain stories were negative
29% of Obama stories were negative

Newspaper Coverage:

69% of McCain stories were negative
28% of Obama stories were negative

A lib friend of mine contends that the disparity of positive/negative coverage is because there were more negatives to cover in the McCain campaign than the Obama campaign. Seriously. Said it with a straight face, too.

PoliCon

11-12-2008, 04:44 PM

A lib friend of mine contends that the disparity of positive/negative coverage is because there were more negatives to cover in the McCain campaign than the Obama campaign. Seriously. Said it with a straight face, too.rotfl. The idiocy there is amazing!